HARISH CHANDER PAHWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2145/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01012943202527 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case. In those cited cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench regarding the jurisdictional issue concerning the issuance of Section 148 notices in light of the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in terms of the aforementioned judgments, implying that the impugned notice is set aside, but the revenue has the option to re-issue it following the correct procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harish Chander Pahwa, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2022-2023. The petitioner argued that the authority issuing the notice lacked jurisdiction, citing a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5), Chandigarh, and others, were represented by the Union of India. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023 is without jurisdiction, considering the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices. The petitioner relied on the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-2145-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 147 CWP-2145-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.01.2025 Harish Chander Pahwa ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(5), Chandigarh & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential proceedings, for AY 2022-2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Gaurav Arora 2025.01.30 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2145-2025 2 whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 15.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of Act, 1961, for AY 2022-2023, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 27.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.30 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →